All right, feeling gross and ill has kept me away, so I apologize for that, but let's get back into it. This is a... Review, I suppose, for the film, "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith," produced by "Search for the Truth." From what I can tell, this is meant to be an unbiased analysis of Mormonism and how it compares to Christianity. This I find funny. Are Christians not defined as people who believe in, and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Apparently not. Let's dive in, shall we?
In my post entitled, ""Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Poignant or Pointless?", I listed two flaws in the film. One was the use of a quote by Elder Orson Pratt, taken from the periodical known as The Seer, which in 1865, received this damning statement from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. With regard to Elder Pratt's teachings they said, "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." Now, the quote is a pretty good one, where Elder Pratt wrote, "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information." Some context for this quote would have been nice, especially since someone searching for that quote would run across the fact that in that article, Elder Pratt was addressing his defenses of polygamy. Without knowing of the existence of the statement made by the leaders of the Church, that could perhaps cause some degree of damage someone's faith. Although, that's the job of the people at "Search for the Truth."
I haven't looked into any more of the video yet than I had watched as of Sunday, April 18th, so I can only presume that the way in which they quote scripture will continue throughout the rest of the video. What I'm referring to is the fact that they'll summarize the part of the scripture they aren't interested in, and then quote whatever part of the scripture they consider the focus. This is not only misleading but has a tendency to pervert the scriptures, and places on that scripture the restrictions of whatever interpretation they have made in their summary.
Let's continue. I'd say, "onward and upward," but something tells me that's not somewhere this DVD is heading, specifically in terms of how it's probably going to present the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So this is obviously where I think this DVD is headed, and after my analysis is done, I'll write a much shorter review of their DVD, just to sum things up.
OK, instantly, by their dividing of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ to "determine which one holds the truth," we're presented with a dichotomy, as though Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ cannot be accepted together. I feel somewhat deceived, because the form of Christianity we're being presented with is the version of it that is riddled with Catholic believes, such as the Trinity. We're asked, "did he become a god through the faithful keeping of his ordinances, or has he always been the only true God?" This we're told, despite references in the Bible to Jesus Christ and his Father, such as the statement made by Christ at Golgotha, recorded in Matthew and Mark (with slight differences), "...Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Why would Christ ask this? If he is God and Christ, could he really forsake himself? How do they explain this scripture? Food for thought, and no doubt something to keep in mind while we venture through this DVD.
Another dichotomy is the presentation of scriptures: the Bible, or the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is claimed by the Latter-day Saints to be the most correct book on earth. Indeed, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 4:461) This does not mean that the Book of Mormon is without errors, nor does it mean that we disbelieve the Bible. Our 8th Article of Faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God" (italics added). We believe in, and revere the Bible, but believe it was a book for the people of old. The Book of Mormon is likewise believed in and revered, the difference being that we believe it has come forth by the gift and power of God for the generations of people on the earth right now.
OK, now around 2:30 minutes into it, we're presented with the claims, or dichotomies, of Mormonism and Christianity: "both claim Jesus is the Christ, both refer to the teachings of the Old Testament, both claim to be the truth." Am I the only one seeing a problem here? Then, "lets now examine these two men and their teachings." A 10 second backtrack will reveal something interesting. She says, "both claim Jesus is the Christ." A look through Merriam Webster's dictionary tells us that a Christian is " one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." So what's with this splitting of "Christianity," and "Mormonism," when Mormons are, in fact, and by definition, Christians?
Can you tell I'm having fun? Now, at just under 3 minutes into this, we're examining the person of Jesus according to "Search for the Truth." This is where I'm going to stop this post. And in explaining why, it's due to the fact that, although it may sound silly, or funny or ridiculous, I'm feeling too contentious. At this point I'd rather have a post that's as unbiased as it can possibly be, and when people become emotionally involved in their subject, bias is more prone.
Since the introduction has been covered though, I think it'll be relatively easy to go through the rest, especially since the groundwork has been set about which kind of Christianity is being compared here, and we've established that it's somewhat backwards in it's analysis of there being a dichotomy of either Christianity or Mormonism.
Showing posts with label anti-mormon arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-mormon arguments. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Anti-Mormon Drivel
While puttering around my documents I located one entitled, "Anti-Mormon Drivel." I've mentioned it before, but one of my siblings had made a post on their LiveJournal, which has since been taken down, about various fallacies regarding the Church. I think he was simply upset and trying to "educate" those in our family who had joined the Church, or was just venting, but the post wasn't kind at all. After reading it, many years ago, I resolved to look up each reference in the paper and refute it with the truth. Believing it to be lost, I worked hard to try and find the batch of lies again so I could address them, but to no avail. Having found it gives me great satisfaction. It's about three pages or so and I've refuted a couple points it brings up, but will be working hard at finishing my rebuttal. It was with great disappointment that in looking for it in a search engine, I was drawn to the supposed "original." I was just upset that my sibling hadn't actually looked up anything about the Church, but instead copied and pasted what someone else had put out there. So! The point of this post is to express my happiness in having found it, and to assure everyone that it'll be a good read once I have it posted - so check back!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
"Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Poignant or Pointless?
So, I had the opportunity to go to the temple on Saturday with some out-of-country friends: a former Sister missionary and her husband, their daughter and mother-in-law. As soon as we got over the crest of the hill, I saw a lone protester and was instantly giddy. I don't know what it is, but ever since I went to Salt Lake for the October 2008 General Conference, I find protesters to be.. well, a form of entertainment I guess.
Here's a photo I took from atop the Conference Centre of the protesters along the Square. My favourite is the guy left of centre, yeah, the one in the Satan outfit.
When I first joined the Church I had never heard of the "Mormons," and a few months into the year 2004 I went online and began looking at anti-Mormon material. I got wound up in this particular LiveJournal that claimed to be a place for "recovering Mormons," meaning LDS members who had left the faith. I forget the subject matter, but something caught my attention and I experienced a trial of faith. I posted a few times on the LJ and although a few of the people there claimed I was a "troll," someone else seemed keen on helping me through my difficulty, no matter which direction I chose: to continue with the Church, or to leave it. They believed I was actually experiencing a trial of faith, and I'll always be grateful to that mystery person for not pushing their own agenda but for helping me figure out what I wanted and believed.
Anyway, since then I've always been drawn to anti-Mormons, and though I stayed away from it for a couple years after that, I've gone through two stages with regard to my reactions to them: first I felt anger towards them, and now I react with a bit of humour. Yes, I find anti-Mormons funny. Well, for the most part, that is until I actually meet one who knows what they're talking about and have done their own research - then my response is a kind of searching interest.
So when we were leaving the temple, we pulled out into the street and saw a man handing out newspapers and little DVDs. I was intrigued because there was a picture of the Saviour and a picture of Joseph Smith on the cover. It's called "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith," and is produced (as far as I can tell) by an organization called "Search for the Truth." In other words, this wolf in sheep's clothing was handing out DVD's to let people visiting the temple know the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I'll edit that I think: the differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between the Christianity of today and the Christianity from Biblical times. A big difference.
So this is just an introduction to that video, which I'll watch within the week, and then post on. It's not looking good though; I'm only three and a half minutes in and I've found two errors. The first is within a quote by Orson Pratt, which is shown onscreen and states, "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever gratefull for the information." As I'm an English major, I can't ignore the spelling mistake in the word "grateful." As for this quote, it's from a periodical Elder Pratt published in called The Seer (careful, that's a large PDF file), and that particular quote comes from an article he wrote defending polygamy. In 1865, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve released this statement with regard to Elder Pratt's teachings, "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."
The next error seems to just be a part of what mainstream Christianity likes to do, that is, "simplify" the scriptures. On screen we're shown a supposed quote from the Book of Abraham, found within the LDS' Pearl of Great Price. Now, if you just read what it says, it seems like they're actually quoting the scripture, but instead they quote part of it and "simplify" the rest. Here's what they show: "Our Father said, 'Whom shall I send?' Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, 'Here am I, send me." The way I first read it made me think the way most people would, that they were quoting, word for word, from the scriptures. I picked up my scriptures and thumbed through it until I found Abraham 3:27, curious about what they "simplified." The scripture reads: "And the Lord said" Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first." Now, I understand that mainstream Christianity uses different terms for the Saviour and for God, but is it really so difficult to understand? My real upset comes from the way they format this, making it appear as a quote when it isn't. Format, people, format.
All right, so this has been, like I said, the introduction. Yes, three and a half minutes has been stretched into two large paragraphs. Using simple math, this hour and twenty minute long video will probably be turned into about 23 paragraphs. Not only am I working on this video now, but I've got a commentary/review on current Quorum of the Twelve President, Boyd K. Packer's "The Holy Temple," (synopsis found here) in the works, as well as the previously mentioned posts on excommunication, the documentary known as "The Mormons," prayer regarding the Book of Mormon, and one on the purpose of temples. In other words, make sure you check back weekly for new posts!
When I first joined the Church I had never heard of the "Mormons," and a few months into the year 2004 I went online and began looking at anti-Mormon material. I got wound up in this particular LiveJournal that claimed to be a place for "recovering Mormons," meaning LDS members who had left the faith. I forget the subject matter, but something caught my attention and I experienced a trial of faith. I posted a few times on the LJ and although a few of the people there claimed I was a "troll," someone else seemed keen on helping me through my difficulty, no matter which direction I chose: to continue with the Church, or to leave it. They believed I was actually experiencing a trial of faith, and I'll always be grateful to that mystery person for not pushing their own agenda but for helping me figure out what I wanted and believed.
Anyway, since then I've always been drawn to anti-Mormons, and though I stayed away from it for a couple years after that, I've gone through two stages with regard to my reactions to them: first I felt anger towards them, and now I react with a bit of humour. Yes, I find anti-Mormons funny. Well, for the most part, that is until I actually meet one who knows what they're talking about and have done their own research - then my response is a kind of searching interest.
So when we were leaving the temple, we pulled out into the street and saw a man handing out newspapers and little DVDs. I was intrigued because there was a picture of the Saviour and a picture of Joseph Smith on the cover. It's called "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith," and is produced (as far as I can tell) by an organization called "Search for the Truth." In other words, this wolf in sheep's clothing was handing out DVD's to let people visiting the temple know the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I'll edit that I think: the differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between the Christianity of today and the Christianity from Biblical times. A big difference.
So this is just an introduction to that video, which I'll watch within the week, and then post on. It's not looking good though; I'm only three and a half minutes in and I've found two errors. The first is within a quote by Orson Pratt, which is shown onscreen and states, "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever gratefull for the information." As I'm an English major, I can't ignore the spelling mistake in the word "grateful." As for this quote, it's from a periodical Elder Pratt published in called The Seer (careful, that's a large PDF file), and that particular quote comes from an article he wrote defending polygamy. In 1865, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve released this statement with regard to Elder Pratt's teachings, "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."
The next error seems to just be a part of what mainstream Christianity likes to do, that is, "simplify" the scriptures. On screen we're shown a supposed quote from the Book of Abraham, found within the LDS' Pearl of Great Price. Now, if you just read what it says, it seems like they're actually quoting the scripture, but instead they quote part of it and "simplify" the rest. Here's what they show: "Our Father said, 'Whom shall I send?' Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, 'Here am I, send me." The way I first read it made me think the way most people would, that they were quoting, word for word, from the scriptures. I picked up my scriptures and thumbed through it until I found Abraham 3:27, curious about what they "simplified." The scripture reads: "And the Lord said" Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first." Now, I understand that mainstream Christianity uses different terms for the Saviour and for God, but is it really so difficult to understand? My real upset comes from the way they format this, making it appear as a quote when it isn't. Format, people, format.
All right, so this has been, like I said, the introduction. Yes, three and a half minutes has been stretched into two large paragraphs. Using simple math, this hour and twenty minute long video will probably be turned into about 23 paragraphs. Not only am I working on this video now, but I've got a commentary/review on current Quorum of the Twelve President, Boyd K. Packer's "The Holy Temple," (synopsis found here) in the works, as well as the previously mentioned posts on excommunication, the documentary known as "The Mormons," prayer regarding the Book of Mormon, and one on the purpose of temples. In other words, make sure you check back weekly for new posts!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Why all the fuss?
When I first had contact with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it was from the missionaries - I had never heard any of the anti-Mormon arguments or discussion. Personally, I don't think it would have mattered. A persons religious worship should be between them and God, and when I prayed about the Book of Mormon I really began that relationship with God.
When I did start hearing the anti-Mormon banter, I didn't understand why so many people would be trying to "disprove," or "destroy" the Church! It just didn't make sense to me! It does now.
Those questions, "why are they always hating on us?" ("us" referring to other LDS), "what do they have against the Church?" are naive. Naivety isn't bad, and I'm not trying to insult people who wonder these things. It's all part of our progression. But it seems to me that those questions are not dissimilar from the "why me?" questions.
So why all the hate? Of course there are also other reasons, but it's really no wonder. If you claim to have the fullness of Christ's restored gospel, a claim which if true would mean that all other churches don't have the full gospel, you're gonna end up stepping on some toes. And toe-stepping typically isn't appreciated.
For now, I'm going to step on some toes and sum up every single reason anyone has ever had for leaving or "hating on" the Church. And, I'll do it in one word. So what's today's word of the day?
Pride.
When I did start hearing the anti-Mormon banter, I didn't understand why so many people would be trying to "disprove," or "destroy" the Church! It just didn't make sense to me! It does now.
Those questions, "why are they always hating on us?" ("us" referring to other LDS), "what do they have against the Church?" are naive. Naivety isn't bad, and I'm not trying to insult people who wonder these things. It's all part of our progression. But it seems to me that those questions are not dissimilar from the "why me?" questions.
So why all the hate? Of course there are also other reasons, but it's really no wonder. If you claim to have the fullness of Christ's restored gospel, a claim which if true would mean that all other churches don't have the full gospel, you're gonna end up stepping on some toes. And toe-stepping typically isn't appreciated.
For now, I'm going to step on some toes and sum up every single reason anyone has ever had for leaving or "hating on" the Church. And, I'll do it in one word. So what's today's word of the day?
Pride.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Are you a Mormon, or a Christian?
I have a way of drawing people to me that I can't explain, so I just embrace it. Since I love discussion and in particular, discussions on religious topics, I took up the opportunity when it was presented to me. Lemme explain, shall I?
I love YouTube. Why? Because of the sheer number of nutty people! Granted, there are some really cool people on there - in fact, many of them are cool, and just happen to be insane - but I tend to float towards the anti-Mormon material.
Now, the sleeves get rolled up, the eyebrows are raised and you ask, "But Katie! Are you as insane as the people you just mentioned?? Why would you go anywhere near that stuff!" In short: So I know what's out there and how to respond to it. There's
a brilliant talk that Hugh Nibley gave called, "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book," and although we (referring to members of the LDS Church) can just repeat what he says and dismiss the arguments made by anti-Mormons as being old and ridiculous, we 'ought not to. Again, why? Because the sad truth is that these arguments aren't limited to the past, they're still being parroted today. Not everyone who repeats these arguments are doing so maliciously; a lot of people just repeat what they hear. A common example of this is the practice of polygamy. And although the Church stopped that practice in 1890, I'm still asked if I'm going to have to share my husband, what I think it'll be like to be wife #2, etc. In high school, there was even a rumour started that I had entered into an arranged and polygamous engagement!
This isn't the LDS Church playing victim - having to "defend" itself from these falsities - but this is evident in everyday life. I'll list a some of these myths from various facets of life...
One I like is the idea that gum (or some other food) takes 7 years to digest. I've heard this about gum and I've also heard it about Bits & Bites Snack Mix.
Another one, that giving kids sugar makes them nuts! Or rather, hyperactive. Have you ever heard that humans only use 10% of their brains? What a waste! Thankfully it's false. How about shaving your legs causes the hair to grow back thicker and darker? It doesn't, period. I could literally go on and on with these examples. My point? Not everything that's "common knowledge" is true, often thankfully.
OK, so let me get back on topic here. Why do I view anti-Mormon materials? So I know what silly arguments my friend's atheist boyfriend is going to pull up the next time I see him. Understanding what twisted things people are saying about my beliefs help me understand those beliefs better. Easy explanation: research has a tendency to make one learn, especially when it's focused research. Crazy, I know, but that's how it goes - a fact, I assure you.
So I had posted a response to this anti-Mormon video (which I won't link to because it can definitely be a stumbling block) on YouTube, and when I checked my e-mail the other day I had a message. The message went a little like this: Are you Mormon?
So I sent a message back saying that I was, and he responded with this, which I find intriguing in and of itself:
Being a Christian I'm finding it increasingly more difficult to determine if the person I'm speaking to is Christian or a Mormon.
He explained that he figured it was a new trend among members of the Church and said he was attempting to figure it out. You see, he likes to learn, so he does research. For that I can give him props. Our messages went back and forth and what seemed like a challenge to me was when he said if I wanted to have a conversation with him, I'd have to have thick skin. I'm a big fan of challenges (goes back to my investigator days), and when he said that I was reminded of that atheist boyfriend my friend has. This friend's boyfriend was saying how he was doing his best to really get under my skin. At this point one of the other guys we were with, who is a long-time friend of mine said, "Even I haven't been able to offend Katie yet." Instead of accepting defeat though, this spirited atheist just said something about re-doubling his efforts to get to me. Don't get me wrong though, I love spending time with these guys because they're fantastic people.
So that comment really peaked my interest, and I said I was open to a conversation if he was. He agreed, and then asked the question. I can only assume he thought it would trip me up.
The question is this: If Joseph Smith spoke a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, would you still uphold him as a true prophet?
I don't know what your answer would be, but inside of 5 minutes I had an answer, and within 20 minutes I had a coherent response to explain my position.
And my position will be explained in further detail on Sunday, because I'm exhausted! And with that, to tie my exhausti
on into the scriptures, and for your reading pleasure:
D&C 88:124
"Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."
I love YouTube. Why? Because of the sheer number of nutty people! Granted, there are some really cool people on there - in fact, many of them are cool, and just happen to be insane - but I tend to float towards the anti-Mormon material.
Now, the sleeves get rolled up, the eyebrows are raised and you ask, "But Katie! Are you as insane as the people you just mentioned?? Why would you go anywhere near that stuff!" In short: So I know what's out there and how to respond to it. There's
a brilliant talk that Hugh Nibley gave called, "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book," and although we (referring to members of the LDS Church) can just repeat what he says and dismiss the arguments made by anti-Mormons as being old and ridiculous, we 'ought not to. Again, why? Because the sad truth is that these arguments aren't limited to the past, they're still being parroted today. Not everyone who repeats these arguments are doing so maliciously; a lot of people just repeat what they hear. A common example of this is the practice of polygamy. And although the Church stopped that practice in 1890, I'm still asked if I'm going to have to share my husband, what I think it'll be like to be wife #2, etc. In high school, there was even a rumour started that I had entered into an arranged and polygamous engagement!This isn't the LDS Church playing victim - having to "defend" itself from these falsities - but this is evident in everyday life. I'll list a some of these myths from various facets of life...
One I like is the idea that gum (or some other food) takes 7 years to digest. I've heard this about gum and I've also heard it about Bits & Bites Snack Mix.
Another one, that giving kids sugar makes them nuts! Or rather, hyperactive. Have you ever heard that humans only use 10% of their brains? What a waste! Thankfully it's false. How about shaving your legs causes the hair to grow back thicker and darker? It doesn't, period. I could literally go on and on with these examples. My point? Not everything that's "common knowledge" is true, often thankfully.
OK, so let me get back on topic here. Why do I view anti-Mormon materials? So I know what silly arguments my friend's atheist boyfriend is going to pull up the next time I see him. Understanding what twisted things people are saying about my beliefs help me understand those beliefs better. Easy explanation: research has a tendency to make one learn, especially when it's focused research. Crazy, I know, but that's how it goes - a fact, I assure you.
So I had posted a response to this anti-Mormon video (which I won't link to because it can definitely be a stumbling block) on YouTube, and when I checked my e-mail the other day I had a message. The message went a little like this: Are you Mormon?
So I sent a message back saying that I was, and he responded with this, which I find intriguing in and of itself:
Being a Christian I'm finding it increasingly more difficult to determine if the person I'm speaking to is Christian or a Mormon.
He explained that he figured it was a new trend among members of the Church and said he was attempting to figure it out. You see, he likes to learn, so he does research. For that I can give him props. Our messages went back and forth and what seemed like a challenge to me was when he said if I wanted to have a conversation with him, I'd have to have thick skin. I'm a big fan of challenges (goes back to my investigator days), and when he said that I was reminded of that atheist boyfriend my friend has. This friend's boyfriend was saying how he was doing his best to really get under my skin. At this point one of the other guys we were with, who is a long-time friend of mine said, "Even I haven't been able to offend Katie yet." Instead of accepting defeat though, this spirited atheist just said something about re-doubling his efforts to get to me. Don't get me wrong though, I love spending time with these guys because they're fantastic people.
So that comment really peaked my interest, and I said I was open to a conversation if he was. He agreed, and then asked the question. I can only assume he thought it would trip me up.
The question is this: If Joseph Smith spoke a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, would you still uphold him as a true prophet?
I don't know what your answer would be, but inside of 5 minutes I had an answer, and within 20 minutes I had a coherent response to explain my position.
And my position will be explained in further detail on Sunday, because I'm exhausted! And with that, to tie my exhausti
on into the scriptures, and for your reading pleasure:D&C 88:124
"Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)